Monday, November 19, 2007

Nontrivial Bocksteins in SO(7)


Pretty, huh? All done in Mathematica. Can go to big SO(n)s whenever you want, boys.

6 comments:

Arelcao Akleos said...

Ok, JJ, here's a question. I've decided I've gotta pick one of Mathematica, Maple, Matlab to really get to know [rather than just run a few set pieces now and then]. The Canadians get all wet and sticky over Maple, the Numerical Analysts and Regressive Statisticians throb with Matlab, and the stuff I see in Mathematics Magazin or the Monthly or with physicists is usually Mathematica. Keeping in mind use in both geometry and statistics, which would you recommend for its overall utility?

Tecumseh said...

I'm partial to Mathematica: it's just better overall, more flexible, and more intuitive to use. Matlab I haven's used in eons - it's not really programmable, unless you use some cockamamie Maple add-on (sort of like Windoze sitting on top of DOS). But I hear that engineers love it. Maple is the canuck version of Mathematica -- more clunky, but it does have some good specialized packages that you won't find in Mathematica. In the end, it may be also a question of price -- go for the one that's for free!

Tecumseh said...

Allright, JJ, I'll be a sport. How many ruinations for n=8? 9? 10?

Mr roT said...

Meli and I are working on 8 tonight. We have a graph but I need to confirm some of the calcs by hand. Probably will post tomorrow.

Mr roT said...

AA, not a well-defined question. Your stats is very geometric but do you need to do more symbolic math or number-crunching?

Maple has a deal that talks to MatLab and vice versa. Might be good, but for the demos like on my website, Math'ca is just better.

Math'ca makes funny mistakes here and there, mostly in the UI. If you were to get that, I could help you write code quite a bit.

My Frontier Thesis said...

Even though this checks out (mathematically) -- yet how would I even know? -- You guys would have also pissed off the McDonald's lady this morning.